Archives

Case of the Day: Zaft v. Golan

The case of the day is Zaft v. Golan (N.D. Fla. 2013). It’s an older case that just came across my screen and is worth a mention. Gidon Zaft, an American, and Yair Golan, an Israeli, were parties to a partnership agreement under which Zaft owned 70% of Royal Moroccan Inc., a Floridan corporation, and Golan owned 30%. The agreement had Florida choice of law and choice of forum agreements, and it provided:

All notices required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
deemed to have been properly given and served when sent by overnight, Registered and/or Certified Mail, postage prepaid, returned receipt requested, properly addressed.

Zaft sued Golan on several business tort claims. According to the return of service, a process server personally served the documents on Golan in Israel, at the address specified for notices in the agreement. The court entered Golan’s default when Golan didn’t answer. Golan sought relief from the default on the grounds that he had not been properly served with process.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Zaft v. Golan

Case of the Day: SPM Thermo-Shield v. SICC GmbH

The case of the day is SPM Thermo-Shield, Inc. v. SICC GmbH (M.D. Fla. 2016). The facts of the case were not reported. SPM tried to effect service on SICC, a German firm, and one of its principals, Waldemar Walczok, by personal service on Walczok when he was in Florida. A judge quashed that service on the grounds that SPM had lured Walczok into the jurisdiction. But SPM had made no effort to serve process via the Hague Service Convention. The defendants moved to dismiss.
Continue reading Case of the Day: SPM Thermo-Shield v. SICC GmbH

Case of the Day: Ure v. Oceania Cruises

The case of the day is Ure v. Oceania Cruises, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2015). Diana Ure was a passenger aboard Oceania’s ship. She fell ill and was treated by one of the defendants, Dr. Fabian Bonilla, an Ecuadoran national. She and her husband sued Bonilla, apparently for medical malpractice, and she served him at his address in Ecuador via mail (sent by the clerk, as FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) requires). Bonilla moved to dismiss, arguing that Ecuadoran law forbids service by mail.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Ure v. Oceania Cruises